This may have been said earlier, but I did not have time to read thru 1000+ posts. Local govt may decide that someone else may have a better idea of what should be done with your property. Doesn't that strike you as something out of an old Western movie? A major landowner that holds all the cards in local govt wants to expand his domain and the peons try to stand up to this? Reminds me of "Pale Rider".
Also,
As long as there are property taxes, you don't own "your" property. You are renting. Just fail to pay your taxes once and find out. You will be evicted, forcibly.
This is what I get for being a newbie. Please accept my apologies. It won't happen again.
You may be right. Or you may be wrong. Rest assured that I was quoted out of context. My attempt at correcting the record is included below. It may or may not be an improvement from your perspective. Thank you for not lacing your e-mail with personal attacks - yours was one of the more level-headed responses.
Regards, Geoffrey Sommer RAND
I'm afraid that the AAAS press office quoted me rather severely out of context. Their press release (which I didn't get to see until two minutes before the press conference) has me saying "if you can't do anything about a warning, there is no point in issuing a warning at all. If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for the populace is bliss". It prefaces that by saying that I "take the controversial stance of advocating silence and secrecy". I most certainly would not take such an absolute stand. Perhaps you will let me correct the record.
At the Western Psychological Association conference in Los Angeles last year, I wrote that "surveys confer social benefits only to the extent that mitigation is possible" but qualified certain exceptions in the disaggregate (not necessarily exhaustive): fatalists, religionists, criminals and the "yellow press". "Religionists" was meant to include the "make one's peace with one's God" case. By criminals I was thinking of looters and profiteers. My point, then and now, was that the primary purpose of a survey is to enable a response, and absent a mitigation capability that purpose is vitiated. The context of all this is an argument for mitigation.
The "ignorance may be bliss" argument is not trivial, however. Analytically, the question is whether the doom-warned population has a negative discount rate - a "dread" factor. Does the population as a whole have a "willingness to pay" to avoid bad news? It's hard to say. Certainly, in the micro sense, the effect is real. Do we prefer a quick (but ignorant) death for Columbia's crew, or do we wish for them more time to "make peace with their God" before their inevitable end? I would guess the former.
In the context of astro-doomsaying, is there an absolute right to information? Many passionately believe so. Yet, how many high-dread people are outvoted by one "tell me the worst" person? I don't know - hence, I don't advocate "silence and secrecy" as absolutely as the AAAS press release indicates. It all depends, as I have said many times, on valuations. What gives the government the right to decide? What gives the government the right to decide on any issue of social welfare?
I was able to clarify most of this during my AAAS talk, but unfortunately, the press release is now to the four winds.
You may be right. Or you may be wrong. Rest assured that I was quoted out of context. My attempt at correcting the record is included below. It may or may not be an improvement from your perspective. Thank you for not lacing your e-mail with personal attacks - yours was one of the more level-headed responses.
Regards,
Geoffrey Sommer
RAND
I'm afraid that the AAAS press office quoted me rather severely out of
context. Their press release (which I didn't get to see until two
minutes before the press conference) has me saying "if you can't do
anything about a warning, there is no point in issuing a warning at
all. If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for the
populace is bliss". It prefaces that by saying that I "take the
controversial stance of advocating silence and secrecy". I most
certainly would not take such an absolute stand. Perhaps you will let
me correct the record.
At the Western Psychological Association conference in Los Angeles
last year, I wrote that "surveys confer social benefits only to
the extent that mitigation is possible" but qualified certain
exceptions in the disaggregate (not necessarily exhaustive):
fatalists, religionists, criminals and the "yellow press".
"Religionists" was meant to include the "make one's peace with one's
God" case. By criminals I was thinking of looters and profiteers. My
point, then and now, was that the primary purpose of a survey is to
enable a response, and absent a mitigation capability that purpose is
vitiated. The context of all this is an argument for mitigation.
The "ignorance may be bliss" argument is not trivial, however.
Analytically, the question is whether the doom-warned population has a
negative discount rate - a "dread" factor. Does the population as a
whole have a "willingness to pay" to avoid bad news? It's hard to say.
Certainly, in the micro sense, the effect is real. Do we prefer a quick
(but ignorant) death for Columbia's crew, or do we wish for them more
time to "make peace with their God" before their inevitable end? I
would guess the former.
In the context of astro-doomsaying, is there an absolute right to
information? Many passionately believe so. Yet, how many high-dread
people are outvoted by one "tell me the worst" person? I don't know -
hence, I don't advocate "silence and secrecy" as absolutely as the AAAS
press release indicates. It all depends, as I have said many times, on
valuations. What gives the government the right to decide? What gives
the government the right to decide on any issue of social welfare?
I was able to clarify most of this during my AAAS talk, but
unfortunately, the press release is now to the four winds.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
This may have been said earlier, but I did not have time to read thru 1000+ posts. Local govt may decide that someone else may have a better idea of what should be done with your property. Doesn't that strike you as something out of an old Western movie? A major landowner that holds all the cards in local govt wants to expand his domain and the peons try to stand up to this? Reminds me of "Pale Rider". Also, As long as there are property taxes, you don't own "your" property. You are renting. Just fail to pay your taxes once and find out. You will be evicted, forcibly.
This is what I get for being a newbie. Please accept my apologies. It won't happen again.
You may be right. Or you may be wrong. Rest assured that I was quoted out of context. My attempt at correcting the record is included below. It may or may not be an improvement from your perspective. Thank you for not lacing your e-mail with personal attacks - yours was one of the more level-headed responses.
Regards, Geoffrey Sommer RAND
I'm afraid that the AAAS press office quoted me rather severely out of context. Their press release (which I didn't get to see until two minutes before the press conference) has me saying "if you can't do anything about a warning, there is no point in issuing a warning at all. If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for the populace is bliss". It prefaces that by saying that I "take the controversial stance of advocating silence and secrecy". I most certainly would not take such an absolute stand. Perhaps you will let me correct the record.
At the Western Psychological Association conference in Los Angeles last year, I wrote that "surveys confer social benefits only to the extent that mitigation is possible" but qualified certain exceptions in the disaggregate (not necessarily exhaustive): fatalists, religionists, criminals and the "yellow press". "Religionists" was meant to include the "make one's peace with one's God" case. By criminals I was thinking of looters and profiteers. My point, then and now, was that the primary purpose of a survey is to enable a response, and absent a mitigation capability that purpose is vitiated. The context of all this is an argument for mitigation.
The "ignorance may be bliss" argument is not trivial, however. Analytically, the question is whether the doom-warned population has a negative discount rate - a "dread" factor. Does the population as a whole have a "willingness to pay" to avoid bad news? It's hard to say. Certainly, in the micro sense, the effect is real. Do we prefer a quick (but ignorant) death for Columbia's crew, or do we wish for them more time to "make peace with their God" before their inevitable end? I would guess the former.
In the context of astro-doomsaying, is there an absolute right to information? Many passionately believe so. Yet, how many high-dread people are outvoted by one "tell me the worst" person? I don't know - hence, I don't advocate "silence and secrecy" as absolutely as the AAAS press release indicates. It all depends, as I have said many times, on valuations. What gives the government the right to decide? What gives the government the right to decide on any issue of social welfare?
I was able to clarify most of this during my AAAS talk, but unfortunately, the press release is now to the four winds.
You may be right. Or you may be wrong. Rest assured that I was quoted out of context. My attempt at correcting the record is included below. It may or may not be an improvement from your perspective. Thank you for not lacing your e-mail with personal attacks - yours was one of the more level-headed responses. Regards, Geoffrey Sommer RAND I'm afraid that the AAAS press office quoted me rather severely out of context. Their press release (which I didn't get to see until two minutes before the press conference) has me saying "if you can't do anything about a warning, there is no point in issuing a warning at all. If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for the populace is bliss". It prefaces that by saying that I "take the controversial stance of advocating silence and secrecy". I most certainly would not take such an absolute stand. Perhaps you will let me correct the record. At the Western Psychological Association conference in Los Angeles last year, I wrote that "surveys confer social benefits only to the extent that mitigation is possible" but qualified certain exceptions in the disaggregate (not necessarily exhaustive): fatalists, religionists, criminals and the "yellow press". "Religionists" was meant to include the "make one's peace with one's God" case. By criminals I was thinking of looters and profiteers. My point, then and now, was that the primary purpose of a survey is to enable a response, and absent a mitigation capability that purpose is vitiated. The context of all this is an argument for mitigation. The "ignorance may be bliss" argument is not trivial, however. Analytically, the question is whether the doom-warned population has a negative discount rate - a "dread" factor. Does the population as a whole have a "willingness to pay" to avoid bad news? It's hard to say. Certainly, in the micro sense, the effect is real. Do we prefer a quick (but ignorant) death for Columbia's crew, or do we wish for them more time to "make peace with their God" before their inevitable end? I would guess the former. In the context of astro-doomsaying, is there an absolute right to information? Many passionately believe so. Yet, how many high-dread people are outvoted by one "tell me the worst" person? I don't know - hence, I don't advocate "silence and secrecy" as absolutely as the AAAS press release indicates. It all depends, as I have said many times, on valuations. What gives the government the right to decide? What gives the government the right to decide on any issue of social welfare? I was able to clarify most of this during my AAAS talk, but unfortunately, the press release is now to the four winds.